Friday, April 27, 2012

What Evolutionists Don’t Understand About Methodological Naturalism

[Ed: An oldie-but-goodie from July 5, 2011]

OK let’s try this again. One more time, this time with pictures. In their celebrated volume Blueprints, evolutionists Maitland Edey and Donald Johanson argued that “What God did is a matter for faith and not for scientific inquiry. The two fields are separate. If our scientific inquiry should lead eventually to God … that will be the time to stop science.” Similarly for evolutionist Niles Eldredge, the key responsibility of science—to predict—becomes impossible when a capricious Creator is entertained:

But the Creator obviously could have fashioned each species in any way imaginable. There is no basis for us to make predictions about what we should find when we study animals and plants if we accept the basic creationist position. … the creator could have fashioned each organ system or physiological process (such as digestion) in whatever fashion the Creator pleased. [The Monkey Business, p. 39, Washington Square Press, 1982.]

Or again, evolutionist Paul Moody explains that:

Most modern biologists do not find this explanation [that God created the species] satisfying. For one thing, it is really not an explanation at all; it amounts to saying, “Things are this way because they are this way.” Furthermore, it removes the subject from scientific inquiry. One can do no more than speculate as to why the Creator chose to follow one pattern in creating diverse animals rather than to use differing patterns. [Introduction to Evolution, p. 26, Harper and Row, 1970.]

Likewise Tim Berra warns that we must not be led astray by the apparent design in biological systems, for it “is not the sudden brainstorm of a creator, but an expression of the operation of impersonal natural laws, of water seeking its level. An appeal to a supernatural explanation is unscientific and unnecessary—and certain to stifle intellectual curiosity and leave important questions unasked and unanswered.” In fact, “Creationism has no explanatory powers, no application for future investigation, no way to advance knowledge, no way to lead to new discoveries. As far as science is concerned, creationism is a sterile concept.” [Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, pp. 66, 142, Stanford University Press, 1990.]

In his undergraduate evolution text Mark Ridley informs the student that “Supernatural explanations for natural phenomena are scientifically useless,” [Evolution, p. 323, Blackwell, 1993] and commenting on the Dover legal decision Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education explains that supernatural explanations:

would be truly a science stopper, because once we allow ourselves to say, “Gee, this problem is so hard; I can’t figure out how it works—God did it,” then we stop looking for a natural explanation; and if there is a natural explanation, we’re not going to find it if we stop looking.

Over and over evolutionists today agree that science must strictly be limited to naturalistic explanations. One finds this throughout the evolutionary literature and it is a consistent refrain in discussions and debates about evolution.

But this sentiment by no means arose with today’s evolutionists. In 1891 UC Berkeley professor Joseph LeConte argued strenuously for this philosophical mandate:

The origins of new phenomena are often obscure, even inexplicable, but we never think to doubt that they have a natural cause; for so to doubt is to doubt the validity of reason, and the rational constitution of Nature. So also, the origins of new organic forms may be obscure or even inexplicable, but we ought not on that account to doubt that they had a natural cause, and came by a natural process; for so to doubt is also to doubt the validity of reason, and the rational constitution of organic Nature.

Likewise Darwin argued that whether one “believes in the views given by Lamarck, by Geoffroy St. Hilaire, by the author of the ‘Vestiges,’ by Mr. Wallace or by myself, signifies extremely little in comparison with the admission that species have descended from other species, and have not been created immutable: for he who admits this as a great truth has a wide field open to him for further inquiry.”

Explanations needed to be naturalistic for scientific inquiry. And as usual the foundations for this evolutionary mandate long predate 1859. Miracles were increasingly eschewed by leading thinkers and a century before philosopher David Hume had made persuasive arguments against miracles. Much of Hume’s material came from theological debates earlier in the century. On the continent leading Lutherans had already discarded the supernatural.

Method, completeness and realism in pictures

So when an evolutionist today insists that science must be naturalistic he is standing on a deep foundation of ideas. But setting aside this history for a moment, what about this argument? Remember that these same evolutionists claim their idea is also a fact. Is there not something curious about these tandem claims? I was once in a debate where the evolutionists claimed that we know evolution is a fact, and that it also is necessary in order to do science. How did they know that? Let’s have a look.

First, imagine the set of all possible explanations, as represented by the blue area below:

Because the blue area contains all possible explanations, it includes false as well as true explanations, lousy as well as good explanations, aesthetic and clumsy ones, and natural and non natural ones. It is every possible explanation in one set.

Now consider the set of all solutions that are according to a particular method, such as naturalism, as illustrated in the orange area below. All explanations that are strictly naturalistic are in the yellow area, and all other explanations are outside the orange area. Because the blue area contains all possible explanations, the orange area is a subset—it is wholly within the blue area.

Next consider the set of all true explanations as represented by the green circle below. These true explanations provide realistic models of nature. Again, this set of explanations must be wholly within the blue area, but otherwise we don’t know just where this green circle is. It could be in the orange area, it could be outside the orange area, or it could overlap. We don’t know what the true solutions all are, which is why we do science.

I have drawn the green circle above as partly inside and partly outside the orange area merely to illustrate the possibilities. But we don’t know where it is, and therefore whenever we mandate, a priori, a method such as naturalism, we automatically exclude a set of explanations that might be true.

In the early days of modern science philosophers were keen to this issue. Francis Bacon, for instance, wanted science only to pursue true explanations. But Bacon also wanted science to restrict itself to naturalistic explanations. Bacon realized that the restriction to naturalism would exclude any realistic, true, explanations that were not strictly naturalistic.

Bacon said that such non naturalistic phenomena should not be pursued by science. So Bacon insisted on naturalism and realism, but forfeited completeness. Science would not investigate all things. The thick black line below illustrates how this position limits itself to explanations that are both realistic and naturalistic, while potentially forfeiting some true explanations (depending on where exactly the green circle really is).

Like Bacon, another early philosopher, Rene Descartes, also insisted on naturalism. But he didn’t like the idea of forfeiting completeness. Descartes wanted science to be able to investigate all phenomena. But what if some realistic, true, explanations fall outside of naturalism? So what.

Descartes solution was to forfeit realism. Science, according to Descartes, would occasionally produce untrue explanations that otherwise could very well be useful. This approach is illustrated by the thick line below that encompasses all the naturalistic explanations, but misses some of the true explanations. Science might produce useful fictions along the way. Descartes mandated method and completeness, but in doing so had to forfeit realism.

After Descartes several scientists did not like this idea of forfeiting realism, as Descartes did, or forfeiting completeness, as Bacon did. These empiricists were interested in true solutions for all phenomena. This approach is illustrated below with the thick line encompassing the true solutions. But in order to maintain such realism and completeness, this approach cannot guarantee what method would be necessary. They might require non naturalistic explanations, for instance. So this approach provides realism and completeness, but forfeits any guarantee of method, such as naturalism.

Bacon, Descartes and the empiricists represent three different approaches to doing science. All are logically consistent. And who knows, the different methods might yield different insights—let a thousand flowers bloom.

But of course all three approaches have a limitation. Like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, you cannot have realism, completeness and method all in one. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

This brings us back to the evolutionists. Unlike Bacon, Descartes and the empiricists, evolutionists do have their cake and eat it too. They claim evolution is a fact, they mandate naturalism, and their science knows no limits. They have realism, method, and completeness all together. How can this be?

The answer is simple. One cannot have realism, method, and completeness simultaneously without some extra, non scientific, knowledge. Evolution’s gnosis is, of course, that true solutions are, indeed, naturalistic. This is illustrated below by the thick line that encompasses all true explanations, but it is also wholly naturalistic. How so? The trick is that the green circle has been moved. It is completely within the orange area. Knowing the location of the green circle, even before doing the science, is evolution’s gnosis—their secret knowledge.

It is this secret knowledge the evolutionists possess that allows them to have their cake and eat it too, and this brings us back to the history of the idea. There is no great mystery here, for evolutionists have for centuries made strong theological arguments that the world must have arisen naturalistically. The true explanations are all naturalistic. Therefore it is little wonder that, while not knowing how the world could have evolved, evolutionists are sure it did evolve. Evolution, one way or another, is a fact.

It is here that many fail to appreciate evolution’s conundrum. They often criticize evolution’s method mandate. Have not evolutionists been wrong to insist on methodological naturalism? No, such a method is perfectly fine.

The problem with evolution is not its insistence on method, but on its underlying theology. By insisting on method and realism and completeness, evolutionists are literally not equipped to consider other legitimate possibilities. They have already made a metaphysical commitment, without knowing whether or not it is true. They have confined themselves to a box. For when problems are encountered there is no way to tell whether the correct naturalistic solution has simply not yet been found, or whether the phenomenon itself is non natural. Of course evolutionists must always opt for the former, no matter how absurd the science becomes.

So the problem with evolution is not that the naturalistic approach might occasionally be inadequate. The problem is that evolutionists would never know any better. The evolutionists truth claims, and the underlying theology, have immense consequences. Religion drives science, and it matters.

71 comments:

It is interesting to note that Intelligent Design uses the same method of reasoning as Charles Darwin himself used. i.e. 'Presently acting cause known to produce effect in question'. The materialistic argument essentially appears to be like this:

Premise One: No materialistic cause of specified complex information is known. Conclusion: Therefore, it must arise from some unknown materialistic cause

On the other hand, Stephen Meyer describes the intelligent design argument as follows:

“Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.”

There remains one and only one type of cause that has shown itself able to create functional information like we find in cells, books and software programs -- intelligent design. We know this from our uniform experience and from the design filter -- a mathematically rigorous method of detecting design. Both yield the same answer. (William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, p. 90 (InterVarsity Press, 2010).)

Is Life Unique? David L. Abel - January 2012Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/

"Nonphysical formalism not only describes, but preceded physicality and the Big BangFormalism prescribed, organized and continues to govern physicodynamics."http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/ag

As well, even if it were to have been found that what are perceived to be natural material processes could create functional information, consciousness presents another problem, besides information, that is not reducible to materialism;

Mind and Cosmos - Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False - Thomas Nagel - November 2012 (projected publication date)Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history.http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199919758.do

“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”(Max Planck, father of Quantum Mechanics, as cited in de Purucker, Gottfried. 1940. The Esoteric Tradition. California: Theosophical University Press, ch. 13).

Indeed the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed as such:

1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material realityhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

It is also interesting to note that what are perceived to be 'material particles' are not even the 'self-sustaining' entities within space-time that can explain their own existence within themselves. i.e. It is now shown by quantum mechanics that in order to explain the continued existence of 'material particles' within space-time one must appeal to a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause to explain why they exist within space-time.

'Quantum Magic' Without Any 'Spooky Action at a Distance' - June 2011Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm

Where is the Photon? - Falsification of Local Realism without using Quantum Entanglement - Anton Zeilinger - videohttp://vimeo.com/34168474

As well, it is now shown, from advances in quantum mechanics, that material particles, besides not being self-sustaining entities within space-time, reduce to 'non-local', beyond space and time, quantum information:

Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp

Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,, "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts

"Remember that these same evolutionists claim their idea is also a fact."

No. No evolutionists claim that the idea of evolution is a "fact". What is claimed (with justification) is that evolution as defined as change in allele frequency over time is a fact. This is because changes in allele frequencies over time have been directly observed. Even more importantly, those changes have been directly related, both in longitudinal observational studies and true experimental studies, to natural selection, making evolution as in "adaptation of populations to their environment in the form of biased changes in allele frequencies over time in favour of alleles that promote reproductive success in the current environment" is a fact.

It is not even disputed by IDists and certainly not by YECs who depend on it to account for radiation of kinds into species post-Ark.

But evolution as an idea is not a "fact" and is not claimed to be one (or at least, I'd like to see an example of such a claim). It would be an oxymoron. An idea cannot be a fact. An idea can, however, be a model and that is what evolution-as-an-idea is. It's one that fits a remarkable number of facts, including the fact of evolution-as-biased-change-in-allele-frequency-over time.

It is very important not to confuse these uses of the term "evolution" and there have been a large number of clarifying essays written explaining the difference between "evolution as fact" and "evolution as theory" aka "idea".

And this error propagates itself through the rest of your essay. You say:

"I have drawn the green circle above as partly inside and partly outside the orange area merely to illustrate the possibilities. But we don’t know where it is, and therefore whenever we mandate, a priori, a method such as naturalism, we automatically exclude a set of explanations that might be true."

Yes indeed. And if the claim were that only the part of the green circle within the orange area can be true (as would be the case if anyone made the claim, which they do not, that "the idea of evolution is a fact") then you would have good reason to say that that claim was false. It cannot be "a fact" because we cannot rule out the possibility that truth lies in the part of the green circle outside the orange circle.

So the claim that "naturalistic explanations are the only true explanations" is unsupported, empirically. It would be, as you point out, a metaphysical claim. That is why those who make the claim are called "metaphysical naturalists".

However, the claim that "naturalistic explanations are the only explanations discoverable empirically" is not just supported empirically, it arises directly from empirical methodology, which is why the people you cite in the first part of your essay are correct. "methodological naturalism" simply refers to the assumption (not the claim, or even the belief) that underlies scientific methodology, that natural explanations are possible.

It may be false, but that is irrelevant, because without the assumption, we would simply stop when we came to a gap, instead of continuing to probe it.

Metaphysically, you could conclude, from a stubborn explanatory gap, that a non-natural explanation must fill it. But scientifically, all we can conclude from a gap is that "we do not know" what fills it.

That is why it is important to straighten out a majory assymmetry between the ID position and the standard scientific position.

The ID position is that the truth lies in the green zone outside the orange. The standard scientific position is that the truth may lie anywhwere in the green zone, but that we can only investigate scientifically that part of the truth that overlaps with the orange zone, and, at best, we can populate that green-on-orange zone sufficiently that there is no good reason for assuming that what remains lies outside it.

But that is a much weaker claim than "the truth must at least in part lie in the green zone outside the orange zone" which is the ID inference.

And I think that much of the virtual bloodshed that has arisen from the ID/evo argument is due to misunderstanding of this assymmetry, not helped by strident claims from a few metaphysical naturalists, such as Dawkins and Provine. The scientific position is merely that of methodological naturalism, and the scientific claim is simply that evolutionary theory is a powerful explanatory framework for biology. Science cannot rule out the non-natural, any more than it can rule it in, because the non-natural is methodologically outside its domain.

“It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.” - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981).http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

What is claimed (with justification) is that evolution as defined as change in allele frequency over time is a fact.

No, that is an equivocation on evolution.

It is not even disputed by IDists and certainly not by YECs who depend on it to account for radiation of kinds into species post-Ark.

Right, allele frequency change is not in dispute. No one is arguing over that. The evolution is fact claim is about evolution, strangely enough, not alleles changing frequencies.

But evolution as an idea is not a "fact" and is not claimed to be one (or at least, I'd like to see an example of such a claim).

Yes, it certainly is claimed to be a fact. I gave an example above.

It is very important not to confuse these uses of the term "evolution"

“It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.” - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981).http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html"

Here is a more complete version (as quoted in your link - I do not have access to the primary source:

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution."

It is completely clear reading the whole extract (although I do not entirely agree with Lewontin) that he is using the word "evolution" to refer to "change in life forms over time" (a broader definition than "changes in allele frequencies over time), not to the theory of evolution.

You may not regard the age of the earth, to within a few million years as a fact, but it is sufficiently well supported that it can be stated as a fact in text books. Similarly for the age of the universe, the age of the biosphere, etc. We know these things as well as we know things like the distance of stars from the earth, or the size of Jupiter, and these things are commonly stated as facts even though all are actually merely inferences. Actually all facts are inferences, and the confidence with which we state them as facts may vary with the confidence we have in the relevant inferential process.

But none of these are theories however much you may want to dispute them as facts. And no-where above does Lewontin mention any theory about how life came to change over time, merely the fact that it did so.

The theory of evolution is a theory that accounts well for these facts, but it is not itself a fact.

Now, some YECs will dispute the facts, and say that there is no evidence for common descent. Others will claim that while the earth may be old, organisms were specially created from scratch at different times during earth's history. Others will claim that while common descent is true, the reason for the diversity over time is that a divine creator pushed or nudged or adjusted the genomes as and when required so as to produce the desired results.

These are not facts either, they are theories advanced to account for the observed data. Or, more commonly, statements of religious faith.

I disagree with Lewontin on this. I think it is important that children learn from early on that all scientific conclusions, even ones we regard as "facts" are merely provisional inferences, subject to adjustment as our understanding grows. Having said that, I agree with him that all the above are well-enough established that it is just fine to report them as "facts" as long as that proviso is always attached, as it should be to any scientific measurement, including ones made in a primary school science class.

But you say:

"No, that is an equivocation on evolution."

No, it is not an equivocation. It is merely an ambiguity. An equivocation is when someone makes a true statement using a word in one sense, and uses that statement to justify an interpretation using the word in a different sense, with intent to mislead.

There is no attempt to mislead here, it would be pointless. A theory is not, and never will be, a fact. However, we are entitled to call "facts" inferred measurements that are so well established as to be beyond reasonable doubt, at least within reasonable confidence limits.

CH: "Right, allele frequency change is not in dispute. No one is arguing over that. The evolution is fact claim is about evolution, strangely enough, not alleles changing frequencies."

Me: Not only is allele frequency change not in doubt, but biased change where the bias is due to differential reproductive success of certain traits in the current environment is not in doubt either. So we know that Darwin's actual evolutionary mechanism works to adapt populations to their environment, right? In other words the biasing of allele frequency changes by the environment, which is true Darwinian evolution, is also a fact, not just random drift changes of frequency?

Let me know if you disagree with this, but most people do ("microevolution"). It is, indeed, an observed fact.

Me, above: But evolution as an idea is not a "fact" and is not claimed to be one (or at least, I'd like to see an example of such a claim).

CH: Yes, it certainly is claimed to be a fact. I gave an example above.

No, your example above is not an example of "evolution as an idea" being claimed as a fact. It's an example of evolution as in change in life forms over time being presented as a fact, which is pretty well an observed fact, as Lewontin claims.

Now you may dispute that this is a fact but it is not an idea. It is an observation. The idea is that this evolution-over-time is that the Darwin's proposed mechanism, which we observe happening in real time (a fact) also accounts for the change over deep time (another fact).

But that - the idea that Darwin's proposed mechanism accounts for the observed deep-time changes as well as for the observed real-time changes, is not a fact. It is a theory, and will always be a theory.

However, it is one that fits the observed facts of evolution.

What I will readily concede however, is that common descent is regarded by Lewontin as a fact I disagree that that has the status of a fact. I think it's a pretty sound inference, but I would call common descent a theory that fits the facts, not a fact.

So I disagree with Lewontin (not for the first time). But I do not agree with you that Lewontin is saying that evolutionary theory is a fact.

And Lewontin is not, repeat not, a spokesman for some monolithic entity "evolutionary science". I suggest that Gould's passage, quoted on the same page as your link, is far better. Here is part of it:

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

It is completely clear reading the whole extract (although I do not entirely agree with Lewontin) that he is using the word "evolution" to refer to "change in life forms over time"

Oh, gosh no. How could you possibly interpret “It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms” as “change in life forms over time.” Your version would be true even under creationism. No, that certainly is not what Lewontin is talking about. That’s a misread.

And no-where above does Lewontin mention any theory about how life came to change over time, merely the fact that it did so.

Again, this is a misread. Lewontin most definitely is not merely referring to “change in life forms over time.” He explicitly states “It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.” How could you possibly say he has no theory in view?

I disagree with Lewontin on this.

Again, we’re talking about evolutionary thought, not what you or I think.

No, it is not an equivocation.

Evolutionists do this all the time. They claim evolution is a fact, and then when called on it they retreat to allele frequency changes.

When Lewontin says that “It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms” he is not merely referring to life form changes. When the NAS says that “The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong” it is not merely referring to life form changes. When Futuyma says that “the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun” he is not merely referring to life form changes. When Gould says that “Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy” he is not merely referring to life form changes.

Lizzie these claims are quite obvious and I’m surprised we’re even debating this. When evolutionists state that evolution is a fact, they are not using some clever definition of the word. They are using the word “evolution” in the standard way. That is, that the origin of species by natural means, usually understood to involve descent with modification, as clearly stated in these quotes.

To imagine that these claims are really referring merely to life form changes would be bizarre.

No, your example above is not an example of "evolution as an idea" being claimed as a fact. It's an example of evolution as in change in life forms over time being presented as a fact, which is pretty well an observed fact, as Lewontin claims.

Again, I think you need to take another read of the evolutionary literature. The claim most definitely is *not* merely that change in life forms is a fact.

What I will readily concede however, is that common descent is regarded by Lewontin as a fact.

Uh oh. Now things are becoming strange. First you said the “fact” claim was only about allele frequency changes. Then you said it was only about life form changes. Now you’re agreeing it entails common descent. I hope you can also see that this is not peculiar to Lewontin. If so, then I think we finally made it.

I disagree that that has the status of a fact.

Again, we’re talking about evolutionary thought, not what you or I think.

But I do not agree with you that Lewontin is saying that evolutionary theory is a fact.

Oops, we lost it. I didn’t say “evolutionary theory” in any specific sense (such as drift, selection, PE, etc) is claimed to be a fact. I said the evolution idea, in its colloquial sense (origin of species by natural means, usually involving common descent). This is tedious, but hopefully we’re progressing.

And Lewontin is not, repeat not, a spokesman for some monolithic entity "evolutionary science".

In this regard he certainly is. The fact claim is standard in the apologetics literature.

I suggest that Gould's passage, quoted on the same page as your link, is far better. Here is part of it:

What you left out is this: “Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.”

Note this phrase: “descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.” That is the evolutionary idea. This is not merely change of allele frequencies or change in life forms.

Summary: You are inferring theology ("metaphysical naturalism") from a misunderstanding of scientific claims about evolution. Religion may well drive metaphysical naturalists. It does not drive science.

No Lizzie, you are the one who is “misunderstanding of scientific claims about evolution.” Your entire analysis is based on a misread of the literature.

CH:Oh, gosh no. How could you possibly interpret “It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms” as “change in life forms over time.” Your version would be true even under creationism. No, that certainly is not what Lewontin is talking about. That’s a misread.

I didn't say that “It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms” can be interpreted as “change in life forms over time.”

Here are his alleged facts, formatted for clarity:

1. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old.

I agree that this is a fact. Do you?

2. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old.

I agree that this is a fact. Do you?

3. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past.

I agree that this is a fact. Do you?

4. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago.

I agree that this is a fact. Do you?

5. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living.

I agree that this is a fact. Do you?

6. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now.

I agree that this is a fact. Do you?

7. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.

I agree that this is a fact but....

...clearly Lewontin does not mean that all living forms that ever lived come from previous living forms, because he says that living once did not exist. What is a fact is that all living forms that we observe have parents. This is a fact. I assume you agree! Or do you think that Lewontin is claiming that living things have been descended from living things since before the dawn of time? I don't think so!

He then, having laid out these facts (and I agree that they are facts, he concludes:

"Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."

He is therefore claiming that common ancestry (not evolution) is a fact, and that lineages changed over time (birds came from non-birds) is a fact, and he refers to this fact as "evolution" i.e. what I said: change in life forms over time.

Finally, he says:

"The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution."

Now, as I've said, I don't agree with Lewontin entirely, here, although I do agree with him that all this "facts" are well-enough established that "fact" is a reasonable word to describe them, and I also agree with him that in practice, the controversies are over the relative importance of various mechanisms, not about whether the proposed mechanisms occur at all. You will disagree with this.

But where I part from Lewontin, is that I try to avoid the word "fact" in a scientific context at all. What we have are data, literally "what are given", and "raw" data usually consist of measurements or observations.

However, data is often not "raw" and are, in fact (heh) I would say models - typically summary statistics (means, variances, correlations) or even more complex models. In brain imaging, my "data" are "what are given" to my by the physicists whose data are my rawer than mine, and which they model as a series of image intensities. But these image intensities are, in fact (heh, again) models. In other words, models at one level of analysis become data at the next.

But in less persnickety parlance, a conclusion or model is treated as a "fact" (data that are so reliable they can be treated as "raw") if it is so well supported that there isn't really any reasonable doubt about their veracity. We all regard the earth's sphericity as a fact, and its orbit, and the distances between stars. However, strictly, they are merely extremely well-supported models of raw data - raw observations.

And of course even direct observations are never entirely raw, and measurement error is controlled by repeated measurements, summarised by means and variances.

But what provides the rigour is the strict maintenance of levels of analysis, so that models are always fitted to data (i.e. downwards towards the rawest level) not data to model (upwards fitting).

He [Lewontin] is therefore claiming that common ancestry (not evolution) is a fact, and that lineages changed over time (birds came from non-birds) is a fact, and he refers to this fact as "evolution" i.e. what I said: change in life forms over time.

Lizzie, this is pretty confusing. First you said the fact claim was merely in reference to changing allele frequencies. Then you said it was merely in reference to changing life forms. Then you said it is in reference to common ancestry.

But you are saying this is not “evolution,” though Lewontin calls it evolution, but this really is nothing more than life forms changing over time.

No, life forms changing over time is not the same as evolution or common descent. Indeed, as I mentioned, “life forms changing” is even true under creationism. The claim, which is made repeatedly by a wide array of evolutionists, is that evolution, broadly construed as the origin of species by naturalistic means, is a fact, though the details are still being worked out.

What is important about this is the fact claim. What is not so important are the details of precisely what is being claim. For instance, whether that entails natural selection or not is not important. Or whether that entails a single common ancestor or not, is again not important. What is important is that evolutionists claim their idea, broadly construed, is a fact. If you want to call that idea “common ancestry via natural means” and you want to avoid the word evolution, then fine. This makes no difference. From what you have written, it appears you at least agree that evolutionists make the claim that “common ancestry via natural means” is a fact.

I’ll say more in the other thread where you asked for more citations.

I agree that this is a fact. Do you? … etc,

Now, as I've said, I don't agree with Lewontin entirely, here, although I do agree with him that all this "facts" are well-enough established that "fact" is a reasonable word to describe them, and I also agree with him that in practice

But where I part from Lewontin, …

Once again, our discussion here is about evolutionary thought, and why it is religious. This isn’t about what you or I think.

Science can ONLY test naturalistic hypotheses. If there is a supernatural, if some phenomenon WAS being affected by ghosts, invisible spirits, or whatever, then science would be powerless to reach that conclusion.

If the true answer to any mystery really was 'Goddidit' then science would never be able to lead us to there.

No-one is claiming that evolution is the ONLY POSSIBLE answer. Every theory in science is provisional, and no-one is claiming that ToE is not. People DO claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but that is not the same thing.

This is one of your most tiresome strawmen - that 'evolutionists' are all insisting that evolution is the ONLY POSSIBLE answer - that it is IMPOSSIBLE for evolution to be wrong. No-one is making that claim. Of course it COULD be wrong. The theory of gravity COULD be wrong. Germ theory COULD be wrong. But with the truly VAST cache of supporting evidence we have, we are now justified in taking them as fact until such a time as they are falsified.

Yes it is theoretically POSSIBLE that 'Goddidit' is the answer to any biological mystery you care to name. But that is not enough to make ID a scientific theory. We should treat such notions as probabilistically equivalent to 'magic fairies did it' until we have any actual supporting evidence to make the idea anything other than a fairy tale.

It is very important not to confuse these uses of the term "evolution" and there have been a large number of clarifying essays written explaining the difference between "evolution as fact" and "evolution as theory" aka "idea".

C'mon Lizzie, don't spoil CH's act!

He's been doing the same disingenuous equivocation over the observed fact of evolution and the theory that explains the observed fact for years. Been corrected on the error dozens of times. It's one of his signature schticks, along with the equally silly "evolution is a religion!"

It's like going to Vegas and seeing the geriatric rockers Three Dog Night. You expect to hear "Joy To The World" even if it's croaked out horribly off key.

It's all part of the Cornelius Hunter Spectacular Creationism Traveling Salvation Show. :)

1) Not true. You are equating methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. The two are not the same.

Methodological naturalism = No supernatural realm/agent/force has interfered with this phenomenon which I can currently studying.

Metaphysical naturalism = No supernatural realm/agent/force EXISTS.

Science insists on the former, but not the latter. Scientists are free to believe that Gods/ghosts/spirits EXIST, but they are not free bring such beliefs into their work. Their SCIENCE cannot rely on the possible existence of such beings.

2) It is SCIENCE, not EVOLUTION which insists on methodological naturalism. Evolution insists on it too - because it is a scientific theory! All scientific theories insist upon it. ToE is not behaving unusually or unscientifically by doing this.

And yet you continue to single it out and criticise it for doing what ALL scientific theories do.

Your problem, in short, is not with evolution, but with the whole of science.

"1) Not true. You are equating methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. The two are not the same.

Methodological naturalism = No supernatural realm/agent/force has interfered with this phenomenon which I can currently studying.

Metaphysical naturalism = No supernatural realm/agent/force EXISTS."

Ok, but then you have to limit your conclusion to the observation: "In THIS observation supernatural forces did not interfered. When you extrapolate to all happened and will happen without interference of supernatural forces you are changing to the metaphysical naturalism.

Willfully or not, Hunter misrepresents the evolutionists' position. His opponents, in fact, are well aware that science may not encompass all of the true knowledge. One has to live in a cave in order not to know that.

Here is an excerpt from Judge Jones's decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover:

4. Whether ID is science.

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

(End of quote.)

The highlighted sentence makes it clear that true knowledge is not necessarily restricted to scientific knowledge. It didn't take long for Judge Jones to learn this. Hunter either can't or won't. It's bad either way.

CH: So when an evolutionist today insists that science must be naturalistic he is standing on a deep foundation of ideas. But setting aside this history for a moment, what about this argument? Remember that these same evolutionists claim their idea is also a fact. Is there not something curious about these tandem claims?

Even if we assume the universe is not comprehendible, assuming that some truths are incomprehensible doesn't make us any less fallible. Nor would it magically promote any of our theories, let alone evolutionary theory, to your straw man of "fact".

We already assume that theories contain errors. This is because we have no principle of justifying universal statements from a series of empirical observations. At best, all we can do is conjecture theories and criticize them for errors.

In other words, the claim of completeness is a straw man. Nor is it clear how we can ever have completeness in the sense you're implying. It would seem that you presuppose this is possible for some reason you have yet to argue for.

CH: First, imagine the set of all possible explanations, as represented by the blue area below:

CH: Now consider the set of all solutions that are according to a particular method, such as naturalism, as illustrated in the orange area below. All explanations that are strictly naturalistic are in the yellow area, and all other explanations are outside the orange area. Because the blue area contains all possible explanations, the orange area is a subset—it is wholly within the blue area.

As usual, is that your argument is parochial, as you're yet again appealing to a particular level of reductionism.

First, you have omitted any sort of definition or implications of a non-naturalistic solution. This is important because of the second omission: the blue area is said to effect the orange area. For example, something in the blue area could have reached in and designed organisms in the orange area.

So, I'd suggest this illustration makes a number of undisclosed assumptions about the nature of the areas, their interactions etc. In other words, it doesn't take itself seriously, in that it's assumed to be true, in reality, and that all observations should conform to it.

What do I mean by this?

CH: I have drawn the green circle above as partly inside and partly outside the orange area merely to illustrate the possibilities. But we don’t know where it is, and therefore whenever we mandate, a priori, a method such as naturalism, we automatically exclude a set of explanations that might be true.

Should one take seriously the existence of an inexplicable realm in the universe that can effect the orange bubble, then the idea that the orange bubble is explicable would merely an illusion that one carefully upholds.

If we do exist in a finite bubble of explicably, which exists in a universe of inexplicability, the inside cannot be explicable either. This is because the inside is supposedly dependent what occurs in this inexplicable realm.

Any assumption that the world is inexplicable leads to bad explanations. That is, no theory about what exists beyond this bubble can be any better than "Zeus rules" there. And, given the dependency above, this also means there can be no better expiation that "Zeus" rules inside this bubble as well. as the inside is effected by the outside.

In other words, what's inside this bubble would only appear to explicable one carefully avoids asking specific questions about the details of their interactions- questions such as, how knowledge used to build the biosphere was created.

Scott: In other words, what's inside this bubble would only appear to explicable one carefully avoids asking specific questions about the details of their interactions

Example?

Apparently, we cannot rule out the possibility that some designer in the blue area choose to create everything in the orange area 30 days ago using some inexplicable means. However, if this occurred you wouldn't have originally authored this authored this post in 2011. Rather this designer would have authored the original post when he designed the world we observe 30 days ago.

As such, there can be no better explanation for you having authored this post than "a designer from the blue zone did it" And the same could be said for anything else in the orange zone.

So, you must carefully avoid this question, and others like it, to prevent the entirety of the orange zone from becoming inexplicable as well.

In other words, this represents a general purpose means of denying absolutely anything, including the creation of knowledge of this post, every scientific theory, including evolution, your own theory about the religious nature of evolution, etc.

You just selectively apply it to that with conflicts with your religious views.

Correction: As such, there can be no better explanation for the contents of this post than "a designer from the blue zone did it for some inexplicable reason using some inexplicable means." And the same could be said for anything else in the orange zone.

The hair-splitters never tire. For the 10^10 millionth time, ID does not claim "God did it" as Eugenie Scott's strawman argument proposes. ID says simply and straightforwardly that in all mankind's experience (all observable data space) specified information comes only from intelligent causes. The counter argument to this claim, as Ritchie fails to realize, is ALSO untestable, just as untestable as he claims the "ghosts did it (strawman)" hypothesis. Not one of the billions of people on earth including millions of scientists past and present have found ANY evidence of complex, specified information having been assembled by unintelligent causes. In this respect, ID is thoroughly materialistic. To parrot the naysayers, as soon as we declare that specified complexity arises by accident or necessity in ways that are not now unobservable, then investigation stops.

The hair-splitters never tire. For the 10^10 millionth time, ID does not claim "God did it" as Eugenie Scott's strawman argument proposes. ID says simply and straightforwardly that in all mankind's experience (all observable data space) specified information comes only from intelligent causes.

That is the standard disclaimer but ID according to whom? Certainly not the notorious Wedge Document:

INTRODUCTION

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

[...]

FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY

[...]

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

[...]

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

You may believe ID was not developed to advance any religious purpose but can you honestly claim that is true of all ID proponents?

Like you, I am all for recycling old material - although my understanding is that the waste is either buried or something like ground up and converted into something more useful - so I will follow your lead.

Your campaign against evolution appears to be encapsulated in your slogan "Religion drives science and it matters". I interpret this to mean that, in biology, the theory of evolution is an outcome of the religious beliefs of biologists where "religious beliefs", in your view, is an umbrella term - or should it be "broad tent" - which covers things like atheism, agnosticism, naturalism, materialism as well as the recognized faiths.

What is unclear is whether this is a good or a bad thing.

If, as appears to be the case, your claim is that the development of the theory has been driven off course by the religious beliefs of its proponents you are, in effect, admitting that religion can corrupt science, that it can impede the search for The Truth™.

I realize, of course, that it is atheism, agnosticism, naturalism, materialism, etc., which you hold responsible for this corruption but your problem is that, while a lot of scientists are atheist, agnostic, etc., a significant number are not. If you are right then their views about evolution should be similar to yours and tend to counterbalance those of the atheists. Yet we see that, for the most part, their views of the science are pretty much the same as the atheists. How can this be? Are they not True Believers™ or is religious belief irrelevant to the science?

The other question is whether or not you are implying that religion is a better way of 'knowing' than science.

If your strategy is, like some others, to argue that science is just another religious narrative and that its claims to epistomological superiority are unfounded then you are, if effect, trying to drag science down to the level of being just another religion. In other words, the strategy is a tacit admission of the inferiority of religion as a means of explaining and understanding the world.

If, on the other hand, your belief is that religion is the better way of knowing then your campaign against science would seem to be unnecessary since the superiority of religion should inevitably become obvious over time. Once people see how much better Catholic quantum computers and evangelical iPads are than their atheistic counterparts, it should be Game Boy over.

Like you, I am all for recycling old material - although my understanding is that the waste is either buried or something like ground up and converted into something more useful - so I will follow your lead.

Waste not, want not.

Your campaign against evolution appears to be encapsulated in your slogan "Religion drives science and it matters". I interpret this to mean that, in biology, the theory of evolution is an outcome of the religious beliefs of biologists where "religious beliefs", in your view, is an umbrella term - or should it be "broad tent" - which covers things like atheism, agnosticism, naturalism, materialism as well as the recognized faiths.

No, no, yes, no. How many times do I have to say atheism is irrelevant?

What is unclear is whether this is a good or a bad thing.

We report, you decide.

If, as appears to be the case, your claim is that the development of the theory has been driven off course by the religious beliefs of its proponents you are, in effect, admitting that religion can corrupt science, that it can impede the search for The Truth™.

Amen brother.

I realize, of course, that it is atheism, agnosticism, naturalism, materialism, etc., which you hold responsible for this corruption

No, no, yes, no. Speaking of recycling, you can see the “naturalism” in evolution here:

corruption but your problem is that, while a lot of scientists are atheist, agnostic, etc., a significant number are not.

No that is not my problem. In fact, you are making my case.

If you are right then their views about evolution should be similar to yours and tend to counterbalance those of the atheists. Yet we see that, for the most part, their views of the science are pretty much the same as the atheists. How can this be? Are they not True Believers™ or is religious belief irrelevant to the science?

The atheists are parasitic on theism, as I have explained many times.

The other question is whether or not you are implying that religion is a better way of 'knowing' than science.

I don’t make that argument. The argument I make is that if we’re going to make religious arguments, let’s at least be open and honest about it. Those arguments may be better, they may be worse. That’s a deep question. But for starters, let’s at least be open and honest about it.

If your strategy is, like some others, to argue that science is just another religious narrative and that its claims to epistomological superiority are unfounded then you are, if effect, trying to drag science down to the level of being just another religion. In other words, the strategy is a tacit admission of the inferiority of religion as a means of explaining and understanding the world.

The answer is "Yes".Gather data, propose hypothesis, perform experiments. When anyone--Darwinists, new agers, even Christians--speculate about warm little ponds, volcanic vents, aliens, etc., they have departed from science and entered the world of storytelling. This is why ID is superior to Darwinism: ID observes that in all of human experience, specified complexity (such as is seen in a software program or in a DNA molecule) specified complexity arises only as a result of intelligent design. This is observation, this is data, this is testable. "Necessity did it" or "Chance did it" or "Necessity and Chance did it" is not the least bit better than Eugenie Scott's ID straw-man argument which she says is the ID claim of "God did it". The commitment to methodological naturalism may uncover much truth. But it cannot claim to uncover all truth because it cannot observe the past...without storytelling. Science CAN be done without the storytelling, without religious arguments. Science can NOT be done without metaphysical commitments. Full disclosure only requires honest about one's metaphysical commitments. (My disclosure--I am a theist, so what?)

That has always struck me as a poor analogy. Parasites are usually thought of as living within the host organism and are dependent on it for sustenance. Without a host they are unable to survive so it's not in their interests to harm them, at least until their own needs have been fully satisfied.

Atheists, on the other hand, would prefer to separate themselves from religious communities rather than live within them and the sooner the better. They do not regard themselves as being dependent on religion in any way and, in fact, most atheists - certainly of the 'Gnu" variety - would rather it were eradicated altogether. - hardly the attitude of a parasite.

[...]

My “strategy” is to shed light.

That could be a good or a bad thing. Light can be used both to illuminate or to dazzle or blind.

ID observes that in all of human experience, specified complexity (such as is seen in a software program or in a DNA molecule) specified complexity arises only as a result of intelligent design. This is observation, this is data, this is testable.

Sorry RR, but "specified complexity" and "complex specified information" are meaningless gobbledygook terms invented by IDCer to add scientific-sounding credibility to their completely subjective "this looks designed to me!" claim. There has been no objective way to calculate or use such a metric ever devised.

If you think CSI is testable data, then test some for us. Please calculate the CSI of Mt. Rushmore, and Mt. Everest, and show us how your CSI values alone can determine which was designed.

That has always struck me as a poor analogy. Parasites are usually thought of as living within the host organism …

Which when it comes to the history of thought and ideas, pretty much sums up atheism’s relationship with theism. Look at Hume’s strong arguments. They pretty much all came right out of theism. Look at the rise of Continental atheism. As Charles Kors found, it came right out of theism. Look at Dawkins, PZ Myers or Jerry Coyne. All their strong arguments are from theism.

That could be a good or a bad thing. Light can be used both to illuminate or to dazzle or blind.

CH: No, I did not equate methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

EL: Well, you might not think you did, but that's what your argument boils down to. You seem to think that adopting methodological naturalism entails adopting the metaphysical position that all truths must lie within the overlapped orange and green zone.

This is astonishing. The argument says no such thing.

From the OP: “Bacon, Descartes and the empiricists represent three different approaches to doing science. All are logically consistent. And who knows, the different methods might yield different insights—let a thousand flowers bloom.”

Bacon and Descartes both suggested MN approaches, and neither entailed metaphysical naturalism. The OP explains all this, and yet Ritchie and Lizzie insist otherwise. There’s not much I can do if evolutionists don’t read the OP. But this is what the discourse is like.

The problem is not MN, but rather the evolution position. As the OP explains: “The problem with evolution is not its insistence on method, but on its underlying theology. By insisting on method and realism and completeness, evolutionists are literally not equipped to consider other legitimate possibilities. They have already made a metaphysical commitment”

Methodological naturalism is merely the position that only truths that lie in the overlapped orange and green zone are discoverable by science. Not that they are the only truths. Do you really not see the difference?

Neither I nor Ritchie are "insisting" otherwise. What we are "insisting" is that modern science does not claim either completeness or even, in fact, realism. It only insists on a method.

Yes, you "explain" in the OP that:

"The problem with evolution is not its insistence on method, but on its underlying theology. By insisting on method and realism and completeness, evolutionists are literally not equipped to consider other legitimate possibilities. They have already made a metaphysical commitment”

This is not an "explanation" but an assertion, and it is my position, and Ritchie's that it is false.

That is why I was very explicit about the positions taken by, respectively, methodological naturalists (all scientists) and metaphysical naturalists (not all scientists).

Your assertion above boils down to the claim that all evolutionary scientists are metaphysical naturalists - that they "insist...on method and realism and completeness". No, they do not. Some do, some don't, but doing so is not a requirement for doing evolutionary biology as the substantial number of non-metaphysical naturalists (including some fairly conventional theists) doing evolutionary biology attest.

"Wow. I said no such thing. Did you read the OP at all?"

Yes. And from reading the OP I learn that you are oblivious to your own confusion about what modern science requires.

For instance, you wrote:

"So when an evolutionist today insists that science must be naturalistic he is standing on a deep foundation of ideas. But setting aside this history for a moment, what about this argument? Remember that these same evolutionists claim their idea is also a fact."

Firstly, when "an evolutionist today inststs that science must be naturalistic" what that evolutionist is doing is simply asserting the truism that science is limited to natural explanations. This does not mean that no other explanations are true, merely that only natural explanationsn are discoverable by science."

Secondly you confuse the true statement that "evolution is a fact", where "evolution" has the very specific definition of "[biased or unbiased] change in allele frequency in a population over time" with the false statement "the idea of evolution is a fact".

This is catastrophic confound, because if "evolutionists" really made the second claim, you would have a case. But they don't - so you don't! It would indeed be a metaphysical claim.

It is not because evolutionists "insist" on method and realism and completeness (which they don't, but even if they did) that they are "literally not equipped to consider other legitimate possibilities".

It is because scientic methodology does not include the equipment to consider other legitimate possibilities. That is not a "metaphysical commitment" it is simply the acknowledgement of the limitations of the scientific method! Hence the term methodological naturalism.

Modern scientific methodology, as you know as a scientist yourself, is based on the principle that we create models of reality, that give as good a fit to our data as we can, and from which we can derive predictive hypotheses that we test against new data.

Scientific methodology is thus predicated on the assumption that the universe is predictable, probabilistically, if not deterministically. It does not claim to discover (dis-cover) reality, merely to approximate it with ever more accurately predictive models.

It is therefore powerless to discover (dis-cover) inherently unpredictable phenomena - phenomena that do not obey the predictive principles we abstract from our observations of the world - from nature in other words, hence the term "natural laws" for such principles.

If, therefore, a divine being who is not subject to those "natural laws" occasionally reaches in to nature and tweaks things (performs "miracles" in popular parlance) then science is not capable of finding that out. All it can say is: this event resists any natural explanation we have come up with so far. It cannot say "we have discovered that this event has a non-natural cause".

Scientific methodology therefore does not require or assume the claim of "completeness". Nor does it even require, or assume, the claim of "reality". Science is incapable of discovering "reality" - it is limited to models of reality, which are evaluated simply by the degree to which they predict data.

That is why your claim that "religion drives science" is wrong. Science is merely a method for predicting the world, and it has inbuilt limitations; its models can never be complete, nor can they be anything other than models.

Therefore no metaphysical claim is entailed in the adoption of methodological naturalism.

Neither I nor Ritchie are "insisting" otherwise. What we are "insisting" is that modern science does not claim either completeness or even, in fact, realism. It only insists on a method.

But the subject is not “modern science.” The subject is evolutionary thought. Earlier Oleg said that evolution does not assume completeness, but I live in the real world. See the sidebar in the post entitled “Here is That Secret Gnosis Evolutionists Have.” Likewise for realism. Evolutionists claim evolution is a fact (not merely allele frequencies changing). There are not even hints of incompleteness or anti realism, let alone any serious discussion.

Your assertion above boils down to the claim that all evolutionary scientists are metaphysical naturalists - that they "insist...on method and realism and completeness".

No, it does not boil down to that. Evolutionary thought does not entail metaphysical naturalism. I’ve explained that several times.

Firstly, when "an evolutionist today inststs that science must be naturalistic" what that evolutionist is doing is simply asserting the truism that science is limited to natural explanations.

No, that is not a truism. Science need not mandate naturalism. But we need not debate that here.

Secondly you confuse the true statement that "evolution is a fact", where "evolution" has the very specific definition of "[biased or unbiased] change in allele frequency in a population over time" with the false statement "the idea of evolution is a fact".

This is catastrophic confound, because if "evolutionists" really made the second claim, you would have a case. But they don't - so you don't! It would indeed be a metaphysical claim.

Well yes, it is a catastrophic confound. But I’m afraid the mistake is yours. For, yes, evolutionists really do make the claim that evolution is a fact. Again, you may assert whatever you want, but in the evolutionary literature they do make that claim. And that is a fact.

I’d glad you agree/understand that the claim is metaphysical. So we agree on that, and that was my point. You disagree with my premise that evolutionists claim evolution is a fact. That is easily remedied by familiarizing yourself with the literature.

CH: But the subject is not “modern science.” The subject is evolutionary thought. Earlier Oleg said that evolution does not assume completeness, but I live in the real world. See the sidebar in the post entitled “Here is That Secret Gnosis Evolutionists Have.” Likewise for realism. Evolutionists claim evolution is a fact (not merely allele frequencies changing). There are not even hints of incompleteness or anti realism, let alone any serious discussion.

Of course the subject is modern science. Your mantra, which you keep appending to your posts is "Religion drives science, and it matters".

Present tense. It's clearly not a claim about the science of Bacon and Descarte but about how science is conducted now. And it is simply wrong about how science is conducted now.

Nothing in modern scientific theory, practice, or methodology entails the assumption that all that true is discoverable through science, merely the acceptance that scientific methodology is limited to discovering the predictable, aka the "natural". Picking out a few quotations by people whom you think are claiming more than this, and then ascribing what you consider to be their position to the practioners of, at best, an entire branch of science, or, at worst, the whole of science, is grossly misleading.

Accepting the explanatory power of evolutionary theory does NOT require acceptance of the proposition that evolutionary theory is, or can be, a complete account of biology, and to maintain otherwise is to seriously misrepresent evolutionary science. Sure there are some prominent atheists who regard evolutionary science as providing evidence that there is no God, but they are neither typical of evolutionary scientists (the ones I'm thinking of aren't prominent research scientists anyway), but there are equally some prominent theist evolutionary scientists who clearly disagree, and thousands more evolutionary scientists who consider (rightly in my view) that science simply cannot provide evidence one way or the other, but simply get on with doing good science.

Anyway, it boiled down to the point that you seem to be generalising from a small number of exponents (many of them now dead, and many who are not practising biologists) to not only an entire field of science but to science as an entire domain.

I think I've made my other points in responses to your other comments.

Oh yes, one point:

"No, it does not boil down to that. Evolutionary thought does not entail metaphysical naturalism. I’ve explained that several times."

No I agree, it doesn't. So why on earth do you keep accusing evolutionary science of making metaphysical claims?

So why on earth do you keep accusing evolutionary science of making metaphysical claims?

You seem to be equating “metaphysical claims” with “metaphysical naturalism.” I am accusing evolutionary science of making metaphysical claims because that is what they do. It is abundant in the literature. You would have to be in denial to disagree. Do you agree this is a metaphysical claim: “what a senseless operation it would have been, on God's part, to fabricate a multitude of species ex nihilo and then let most of them die out!” ?

Do you agree this is a metaphysical claim: “what a senseless operation it would have been, on God's part, to fabricate a multitude of species ex nihilo and then let most of them die out!” ?

Yes. But you err when you claim that ToE is built on such claims. It isn't.

Science (and yes, that includes ToE) does not make any metaphysical claims. So scientists are free to hold whatever religious faith they choose, be they Christian, Jew, Atheist, or whatever.

Your work is frankly veering into the dishonest when you quote atheist 'evolutionists' making rhetorical statements and then claiming ToE is built on such reasoning!

The logical fallacy you are committing is the confirmation bias. I could, if I were a racist, keep a blog and write a post every time a black person committed a crime and keep peddling the accusation that "They're all like that!" And indeed, someone reading nothing but my blog might even be swayed when, day after day, they saw nothing but "Here's another black person committing a crime."

I apologise that the comparison is unflattering, but it is an apt one. Dobzhansky is free to hold whatever religious views he wishes. As is Dawkins, Coyne, or any of the numerous Christian, Jewish and Muslim 'evolutionists' who apparently see no conflict in their work and their religious beliefs. But you are absolutely wrong to hold the non-scientific beliefs of a few of them and peddle "They all think this".

You might be able to catch 'evolutionists' making metaphysical or religious claims (as, of course, they are free to hold), but that absolutely does not mean ToE is BUILT on such claims. There is a fundamental difference. It is built on the numerous observations and data points which collude to evolution being true.

Likewise Tim Berra warns that we must not be led astray by the apparent design in biological systems, for it “is not the sudden brainstorm of a creator, but an expression of the operation of impersonal natural laws, of water seeking its level

Yes...and do not be led astray by the apparent design in the faces on Mt Rushmore, for they are "... not the sudden brainstorm of a creator, but an expression of the operation of impersonal natural laws..." and do not be led astray by the apparent design in Windows 7, for it is ... not the sudden brainstorm of a creator, but an expression of the operation of impersonal natural laws...

Why is God considered supernatural? If something exists, it is natural, no? What if a race of aliens created life on earth? Why would that be considered supernatural and why would it put an end to scientific inquiry? What is wrong with reverse-engineering the designed mechanisms of life to see how it was done?

The problem with evolutionists is that they have a hidden agenda, which is to counter religion at all costs and replace it with their own religious belief system. They have no idea how life originated on earth but they are 100% sure it was not engineered. Religion drives science, as Hunter keeps insisting.

The arrogance and willing stupidity of the so-called scientific community has become insufferable. They come up with all sorts of moronic explanations for the origin of life while projecting a semblance of authority. Paul Feyerabend was right when he wrote in Against Method:

"...the most stupid procedures and the most laughable result in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down to size and to give them a lower position in society."

Because evolutionists are 100% sure that life was not engineered but arose on its own. They believe, superstitiously enough, that inanimate dirt has the power to self-assemble into complex life forms, all by itself. They claim that, if life was engineered, it would put an end to scientific inquiry. They insist that the intelligent design of life means the end of science as we know it (see Hunter's post).

This is, of course, preposterous and it makes the evolutionist's agenda all the more transparent. One of the most celebrated scientists in history, Isaac Newton, believed that the universe was created. This did not prevent him from doing science, did it?

"Because evolutionists are 100% sure that life was not engineered but arose on its own."

Nobody is 100% sure of any of that, and we simply don't have a good theory of OOL at present anyway. And of course OOL is different from evolution anyway. It's certainly true that many scientists assume that OOL was not a "supernatural" event, but you yourself do not describe events as "supernatural" anyway. It is also true that many scientists (and non-scientists) do not think an intelligent external agent was likely to have been responsible for the creation of the first life forms. But some do, and some think that an intelligent God was responsible for creating a universe with discoverable laws in which life would necessarily emerge from non-life and evolve into conscious beings. Humans, even.

But 100% sure is simply not a scientific position. All scientific conclusions are necessarily provisional. That's why science uses words like "theory" and "model" and "hypothesis". Nothing is 100% certain in science. It's built in to the methodology.

"They believe, superstitiously enough, that inanimate dirt has the power to self-assemble into complex life forms, all by itself."

Well, with the proviso I give above, scientists believe, with good evidence, that atoms and molecules have chemical properties, and these include the affinities with other atoms and molecules. So "dirt" is certainly not inert. We also know that certain molecules can self-replicate (generate copies of themselves). Finally, we also know (both because it is a logical conclusion, and it can be empirically demonstrated) that if self-replicating entities replicate with some degree of variability, and if different variants have differing degrees of reproductive success, the most successful variants will become the most prevalent, allowing successful novel variations to accumulate in the population, and less successful variations to be out-performed.

So the basic mechanisms that would allow life (evolving populatins of self-reproducing entities) to emerge from what you call "dirt" but which is of course non-inert chemicals are reasonably well-understood.

That doesn't mean that anyone is 100% how it happened, or even that anyone can be 100% that it happened. But it's not a "superstitious" proposal, it's a perfectly reasonable one, and also perfectly compatible belief in an intelligent divine creator (one intelligent enough to make a universe containing elements like carbon, for instance).

"They claim that, if life was engineered, it would put an end to scientific inquiry."

No, you have this back to front. "They", i.e. scientists, point out that if we assume that certain events (life from non-life, for instance) occurred by undiscoverable mechanisms, then that is tantamount to stopping scientific inquiry. We cannot conclude that a mechanism is undiscoverable - we can only fail to discover a mechanism.

But intelligent agency is a perfectly discoverable mechanism, and discovering evidence of external intelligent involvement in biology certainly would not be a science stopper. It would be very exciting!

"They insist that the intelligent design of life means the end of science as we know it (see Hunter's post)."

No, this is a misunderstanding. See above.

"This is, of course, preposterous"

Yes, it is. That's why no-one holds this view

"One of the most celebrated scientists in history, Isaac Newton, believed that the universe was created. This did not prevent him from doing science, did it?"

Many present day scientists believe that the universe was created, and it doesn't stop them doing science either. And Dobzhansky, the scientist that Cornelius keeps quoting, also believed this, and it didn't stop him. Evolutionary theory, as well as the idea that the earliest self-replicators emerged spontaneously from non-self-replicators, is perfectly compatible with the idea that the entire universe, with properties that were conducive to the emergence of conscious intelligent life, was intentionally brought into existency by a divine creator.

We do not need to posit specific intelligent interference to explain how combustion works, and similarly, most scientist do not think we need to posit specific intelligent interference to explain how life works. But in both cases, we presuppose a universe with the properties ours have. Our explanations do not include an explanation of why our universe has these properties.

And even if we had reason to believe that our universe had to have these properties, or that there are infinite universes so some of them have to, it does not answer the question "is there a reason for existence at all"? Which might have a divine answer. But it would be outside the domain of science.

Newton is not known for his theories of how the universe began, but for his equations predicting how things move in accordance with forces which he proved thru his math skills. There are no variables for the effect of God in his equations. Just like theists who support evolutionary theory.

In Newton's mind, his equations were a direct result of God having created things a certain way. He did not see his work as separate from the works of God but as an incomplete description of God's creation.

How did his belief that the universe and everything in it were created prevent him from doing science? Better yet, why do evolutionists insist on lying and then coming up with lame excuses for their lies? The dishonesty is so blatant and in your face, it's embarrassing.

Whatever caused Newton to believe the physical world could be explained thru physical means is irrelevant to the actual work he did. His insight and mathematical genius in describing the world is the reason he is considered a great scientist

If the carpenter building my house believes that lizard people live under the Denver Airport ,but frames my house square and level and according to code ,he is a good carpenter even if he is a nut.

As for your editorial views, like Newton ,you have to do the math, provide actual evidence of some sort to back up your view, or not,it is a free country.

I don't see anything special about the "digital" part. Chemistry is the science of discrete entities (molecules and atoms) so any biochemical process is going to be "digital" in the sense of not being continuous.

Nor is "functional" a necessary signature of design. If one entity (say me) makes a second entity (say a pizza) serve the first entity's purpose (provide me with nourishment) then that pizza is serving a function, and we can say I designed it to do so.

However, if something (say a protein) enables another thing (the organism) to resist infection, we can say the protein has the function of enabling the organism to survive, but we do not say that the organism designed the protein.

In other words function is not necessarily teleological - it can be, to use Monod's word, "teleonomic" - a entity can simply function to promote the persistence of another, just as the rock pillars of a natural arch function to hold up the arch, and cause it to persist, even though the arch did not design the pillars, and nobody designed the arch.

So now we come to "code". Let's stipulate that DNA code has function (enables the organism that bears it to persist both as itself, and in copies of itself) and is digital (it's made from discrete units of a polymer), but that neither is the signature of design (lots of things are both digital and functional but undesigned.

So is "code" necessarily designed? Well, we'd need a clear definition of "code". I know of none that both includes DNA but excludes entities that nobody claims are designed.

The problem with Cornelius Hunter's hypothesis is that there should be quite a few atheist biologists who not only doubt but seriously oppose the theory of evolution. But I can only come up with three names (Bradley Monton, David Berlinski, and Jeffrey M. Schwartz) and there is not even a biologist among them.

"The problem with Cornelius Hunter's hypothesis is that there should be quite a few atheist biologists who not only doubt but seriously oppose the theory of evolution. But I can only come up with three names (Bradley Monton, David Berlinski, and Jeffrey M. Schwartz) and there is not even a biologist among them."

Berlinski is not an atheist. He's an IDC, whether he will admit it or not. I've never heard of the other two but if they accept or believe that there was or is a designer/creator they are not atheists either.

Everything about Cornelius's so-called hypothesis (religious fundamentalism) is a problem.

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/